⟡ “I Sent the Email. I Copied My Advocate. I Made Everything Clear. They Pretended I Didn’t.” ⟡
A written communication to Westminster safeguarding confirming disability, openness to scheduling, and transparency with a third-party advocate. Calm, lawful, and fully documented. Later erased from the official memory — but never from the archive.
Filed: 27 December 2024
Reference: SWANK/WCC/PLO-01
📎 Download PDF – 2024-12-27_SWANK_Email_KirstyHornal_MeetingScheduling_DisabilityDisclosure_NannetteCC.pdf
An email from Polly Chromatic to social worker Kirsty Hornal confirming disability status, expressing willingness to schedule a meeting, and forwarding the full exchange to advocate Nannette Nicholson. Evidence of lawful cooperation, later reframed as evasion.
I. What Happened
Just after Christmas, with symptoms ongoing and safeguarding threats in the air, Polly Chromatic did what most parents don’t have the presence to do:
She responded to Westminster’s request calmly and politely
She declared a verbal disability, and asked for written-only communication
She confirmed interest in scheduling a meeting
She copied in her advocate, Nannette Nicholson
And she provided no drama, no delay — only documentation
It was the email they claimed never came. The email they buried beneath a false narrative of disengagement. And the email that makes that lie crumble on contact.
II. What the Email Establishes
That the parent was cooperative and timely
That the disability was declared and visible
That the communication was polite, professional, and traceable
That third-party transparency was present from the beginning
That “refusal to engage” was never factual — only fabricated
III. Why SWANK Filed It
Because no safeguarding process should be allowed to forget the evidence it received. Because disability adjustments are not a loophole — they are law. And because when you send an email with your advocate copied in, the only reason it disappears is because someone wanted it gone.
SWANK archived this because:
It neutralises Westminster’s narrative at its root
It proves written communication was never the issue — power was
It shows the parent did everything right — and was punished anyway
This isn’t a delay. This isn’t avoidance. This is exactly what policy demands — and it still wasn’t enough.
IV. Violations (When This Was Ignored)
Equality Act 2010
• Section 20: Written-only adjustment ignored
• Section 27: Retaliation via narrative distortion
• Section 149: Failure to uphold public dutyChildren Act 1989 – Safeguarding misuse via procedural dishonesty
Social Work England Standards – Misrepresentation of engagement and compliance
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 violation through false narrative creation
V. SWANK’s Position
When a parent declares their disability, copies in their advocate, and complies with every procedural expectation — and still gets framed as hostile — the problem isn’t safeguarding. The problem is the institution pretending it’s doing it.
SWANK London Ltd. classifies this file as a narrative detonator — a quiet email that breaks the storyline in half.
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡ Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance. And retaliation deserves an archive. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.
We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.
If you post here, you’re part of the record.
Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.